### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00054

- CR

LORENZO EASTERLY WILLIAMS , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the County Court Madison County, Texas Trial Court No. CR18047

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Lorenzo Easterly Williams was convicted by a jury of the misdemeanor

offense of operating a motor vehicle while his driver ’ s license was invalid

. Williams

appeals his c onvict ion, asserting that h e possessed a valid driver ’ s license at the time he

was issued the citation . We will affirm.Williams v. State Page 2 Background

On A ugust 27, 2017, Williams was issued a citation for driving with an invalid

license in Madisonville, Texas by a Department of Public Safety trooper

. 1 Willia ms
requested a trial, which was held on November 28, 2017 in the justice of the peace court

.

The court found Williams guilty and assessed a fin e of $ 243 .00 on January 30, 2018

. Williams appealed his conviction, was appoint ed cou nsel, and went t o trial in the C ounty

Court of Madison County on February 7, 2019. The jury convicted Williams and assessed

a fine of $500.00

.

Issues

Williams has not designated specific issues for appeal, but incl udes the following

“ Statement of t he Case ” :

During a natural disaster in Houston Texas, I was traveling from Houston going towards Dallas TX. The car I was traveling in was parked at a gas station in Madisonville TX. The officer never observed me drivin g on the roadwa y. I also had a va lid Tennessee drivers license to drive. It was raining hard at the time and I was under the shield at the gas pump. The policeman said something to the effect that you look suspicious and your car registration was out. I told the offi cer we are in a s ta te of emergency and my Tennessee drivers license is valid. I told the officer I drive back and forth. I presented the officer a valid Te nnessee drivers license . The officer wrote me a ticket for driving while licens e inv alid. I never presented the off i cer with a Texas license but he told me I did not pay some tickets. The officer then searched me asking me where the drugs and guns at. The officer stated to me, “ You lucky I am not taking you to jail. ” I made a complain t aga inst the officer with the i n spector general against the officer and the way he treated me during a state o f emergency natural disaster in the area. During the Justice of the Peace trial with the JP Judge, the officer tells the court he was mad/angry beca use I filed a complaint agai n st him. During the trial the officer never said I was driving on the roadways in

1 Williams was also cited for an expired registration. That citation is not included in this appeal.Williams v. State Page 3

Madisonville TX. During the court proceedings during the trial the prosecutor was asking me about a pending case that I had no knowledge abo ut. T he case the prosecutor was referring was cause # / case # 1820120. I was leavin g the courthouse the officer was stalking me and following me in an aggresive manner. I had a court date on July 2nd 2018 for the original case that I am appealing. When I get to court the officer in th e courtroom told me Brockman put out a warrant on me for d riving while license invalid and for failure to appear. I never received a court date are notice are nothing. The officer went inside and told the JP Judge Plot ts t hat he just finished testifying a gainst me and he seen me driving. The officer had the JP Judge Plotts to sign off on a warrant for my arrest for failure to appear and drivin g while license invalid. The JP Judge Plotts apologize to me for signing o ff on the warrant. The JP Judge Plott s came down to the jail and let me do a signature bond to get out and he assured me this case would be thrown out in his courtroom. I don ’ t hear nothing on this case from July 2nd 2018 until Feb 26th 2019. Then fast forwar d to now and JP Judge Steven A C o le put out a warrant for my arrest. During the trial the prosecutor brought up pending cases I had no knowledge of. During the trial the prosecutor kept asking me why I made a complaint against the officer. My d rivers li cense was valid at the time my b r other vehicle was parked at the gas pump during Hurrican e Harvey in Houston TX. I travel back and forth between Tennessee and Texas. During the trial as I was walking to the restroom it looked like the
prose cutor Cynthia Roho l t walked into the jury roo m while they were deliberating talking about the case. It looked like she went through a locked door where they was at.

In his notice of appeal, Williams notes:

I would like the appeal court to overtur n this conviction b ecause the state did not prove I was driving on a roadway. They did not say what street; what road. The state did not meet this burden. I would like the appeal court to o verturn this conviction because I presented to Officer Brockm an a valid drivers lic ense.

While Williams has not sp ecifically de signated issues for appeal , the State

identifie s the following issues from Williams ’ brief :

1. Whether Williams operated on a public highway in Madison County, Texas

on August 27, 2017.Williams v. State Page 4

2. Whether Williams held a valid driver ’ s lic ense recog nized by the State of

Texas on August 27, 2017.

3. Whether the State ’ s prosecuting attorney tampered with the jury at trial on

February 7, 2019.

Discussion

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

. We will presume that issues one and two relate to

the sufficienc y of the evidence to support Williams ’ conv i ction.

The Co u rt of Criminal A ppe als ha s expressed our standard of review of a

sufficien cy issue as follows:

Whe n a ddressing a chall enge to the sufficiency of the eviden ce, we consider w h et her, after view ing all of the evidence in th e lig ht mos t favorable to the verdic t , any rational t rie r of f act could have found the essential elements of th e crime beyond a reasona ble doubt. Jac kson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. E d. 2d 560 ( 1979 ); Vi lla v. S tate , 514 S.W.3d 22 7, 23 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). Thi s st andard requir e s t he
ap pellate court to defer "to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conf lict s in the testimony, to weigh the evide nce, and to draw

r e a sonable inferen ce s from b asic facts to ultim at e f a cts." Jackson , 443 U.S. at 3 19
, 99 S.C t. 2781

. W e may not re

- weigh the evidence or substitute our judgmen t for that of the fac tfi nder. Willia ms v. State , 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2007). Th e court conductin g a suffic iency review must n ot

en g age in a "divide and con quer" str ategy but mus t co nside r the cumulative force of all the evidence. Villa
, 514 S.W.3d at 232. A lth ough juries m ay not speculate about the meaning of fact s or evidence, j ur i e s are permitted t o draw a ny reasonable infer en ces from th e facts so long a s eac h in ferenc e is

su p por ted b y the evidence presented at trial. Cary v. State , 5 07 S.W.3d 750, 757 (T ex. Crim. App. 2 016) ( citing Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ); see

a l s o Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S. W.3d 9, 16

- 17 (Tex. C rim

. App. 2 007). We presume that the factf inder r e sol ved a ny conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. Merritt v. State , 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Cr i m . App. 2012). Th is is be cause the jurors ar e the exclusi ve judges of the facts , th e cred ibility of the w itnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimon y. Brooks v. State
, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Direct eviden ce and circumsta nt i a l evidence are eq uallyWilliams v. State Page 5

pr obative, and circum st ant i al evid ence alone may be suff icie nt to uphold a

co nvict ion so long as the cumulative force of all the incri minating circumstance s i s sufficient to support the conviction. Ramsey v. Stat e , 473 S.W.3d 80 5, 8 09 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2015) ; Hooper , 214 S.W.3 d at 1 3. We measure whether the e vide nce pr esented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction by comparing it to "the elements of the offense a s defined by the hypothetically correct ju ry charge for th e c a se." Malik v. St ate , 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (T ex . C r im. App . 1997). The hyp othet ical ly

cor rect ju r y c harge is one that "accurately sets out the law, is author ized by the indictmen t, does not unne cessarily increase the State's burden of p roof

or unnecess ar i l y restrict the St ate's the ories of liability
, and adequat ely describes the part icul ar off ense fo r wh ich t he defendant was tried." Id. ; see also Daugherty v. State , 387 S.W.3d 65 4, 665 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2013). The "law as authorized by the indictment" in c l udes the statut or y element s of the offense a nd th o se elem ents as modified by th e in dictme nt. Da u ghe rty , 387 S.W.3d at 665.

Zuniga v. State , 551 S.W.3d 729, 732

- 33 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2018).

The complaint against Williams specifically charged that Williams intentionally

and kn owingl y operated a m o tor vehicle upon a pu blic highway after renew al of his

driver ’ s license had been denied u nder Chapter 706 of the Transportation Code and that

Williams did not have a d river ’ s license subsequently issued under Chapter 521 of the

Transportat io n Code. T he Transportation Cod e provides: “ (a) A person commits an

offense if the person operates a m otor vehicle on a highway . . . (4) after renewal of the

person ’ s driver ’ s license has b een denied under any law of this state, if the person does

not ha ve a driver ’ s license subsequen tly issued under this chapter. ” T EX

. T RANSP

. C ODE

A NN

. § 521.457(a)(4). In order to establish a violation of § 521.457(a)(4) , the prosecution

was required to prov e that Williams operated a motor vehicle on a highway after h is

driver ’ s license had been ca nceled if he did not have a license th at was subsequentlyWilliams v. State Page 6

issued under Chapter 521 of the Transpor t ation Code. See Harrison v. State , 4 21 S.W.3d

39, 42 (Tex. Ap p.

— Waco 2013, pet. ref ’ d).

The evidence at trial established t h at William s ’ driver ’ s license had been revoked

and h ad not been renewed at the time the citation was issued. Williams testified that his

license still had not been renewed at the time of trial.

Williams testi fied that he d r ove the vehicle from Housto n to Madisonville on the

day the citation was issued. 2 The trooper wh o issued the citation test ified that he saw

Williams pull into the convenience store/gas station

. The jury was entitled to infer that

public roadways were used. A fter view ing all the e vi dence in th e lig ht mos t favorable to

the verdic t , the jury could have found the essential elements of th e crime beyond a

reasona ble doubt.

Williams argues that he should not have received a citat ion bec ause he had a valid

driver ’ s license issued from t he State of Tennessee. The Transportation Code p rovides a

waiver for a driver ticketed in the State of Texas who is a resident of another state and

possesses a valid driver ’ s lice nse issued by that state. T EX

. T RANSP

. C ODE A NN

. § 521.030

.
However, Willi am s testified that he was a resident of the State of Texas on the day t he

citation was issued and that he had been for approximately three years prior to that date.

The Transportation Code provides that any person not expressly exempted under the

Code “ ma y not o p e rate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds

2 Williams also notes in his Notice of Appeal that he was driving f rom Houston towards Dalla s on the day th e citation w as issued.Williams v. State Page 7

a driver ’ s license issued under this chapter. ” Id . at § 521.021. Williams ’ possession of a

valid Tennessee driver ’ s license did not, therefore, provide a defense

. 3

We o ve rrule issues one and two.

B. Jury Tampering/Prosecutorial Misconduct

. Issue three
, relating t o Willi ams ’

assertion that the prosecutor entered the jury room while the jury was deliberating
, has

no support in the record. The record does not reflect th at Williams raised this issue with

the trial court at the time it occurred

— prior to the jury returning a verdict

. This issue

was not, therefore, pr eserved for app eal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1

. Even if the issue had been preserved, Williams did not raise t he issue in a motion

for new trial. A motion for new trial is a prerequisite to raising an issue on appeal when

the issue r equ ires establishing facts that are not otherwise in the record. T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

21.2; Landers v. State , 402 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Tex

. Crim. App. 2013)

. “ A motion for new trial
, supported by an affidavit, is the proper method for preserving a jury misconduct error. ”

Becerra v. State , 62 0 S.W

. 3d 745, 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (citing Trout v. State , 702

S.W.2d 618, 620 (Tex. Crim. 1985 )) . We overrule Williams ’ third issue.

Conclusion

Havin g overruled all of Williams ’ issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

3 Williams also tes tified that he was leaving Houston to es cape the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey. The record does not reflect that he requested a necessity instruction. Any possible issue related to a necessi ty de fen se was not preserved for appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1

. Nor was any issue preserved
regar ding his claim that the prosecutor questioned him about other cases. Id

.Williams v. State Page 8 MATT JOHNSON Justice

Before Chief Ju stice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Davis 4 Affirmed Opini on de li vered and f iled August 18, 2021 Do no t p ubl ish [CR 25 ]

4 The Honorable Rex Davis, Senior Justice (Retired ) of the Tenth Court of Appea ls, s itt ing by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.